CHARACTERISTICS: Ebola was
discovered in 1976 and is a member of the Filoviridae family (previously part
of Rhabdoviridae family, which were
later given a family of their own based on their genetic structure). It is an elongated
filamentous molecule, which can vary between 800 – 1000 nm in length, and can
reach up to14000 nm long (due to concatamerization) with a uniform diameter of
80 nm (2-5). It contains a helical nucleocapsid, (with a central axis) 20 – 30 nm in diameter, and is enveloped by a helical capsid, 40 –
50 nm in diameter, with 5 nm cross-striations (2-6).
The pleomorphic viral fragment may occupy several distinct shapes
(e.g., in the shape of a “6”, a “U”, or a circle), and are contained
within a lipid membrane (2, 3). Each virion contains one molecule of single-stranded, non-segmented,
negative-sense viral genomic RNA (3, 7).

Five Ebola subtypes have been
identified: Zaire ebolavirus (ZEBOV), which was first identified
in 1976 and is the most virulent; Sudan ebolavirus, (SEBOV; Ivory Coast ebolavirus (ICEBOV); Ebola-Reston (REBOV), and Bundibugyo ebolavirus (BEBOV) (1, 3, 8, 9). Reston was isolated from cynomolgus monkeys from the Philippines in 1989 and is less pathogenic in non-human
primates. It was thought to be the only subtype that does not cause infection
in humans until 2009, when it was strongly speculated to have been transferred
from pigs to humans. Bundibugyo was discovered in 2008, and has been found to
be most closely related to the ICEBOV strain (9).

SECTION II –
HAZARD IDENTIFICATION

PATHOGENICITY/TOXICITY: The
Ebola virions enter the host cells through endocytosis and replication occurs
in the cytoplasm. Upon infection, the virus targets the host blood coagulative
and immune defence system and leads to severe immunosuppression (6, 10). Early signs of infection are non-specific and flu-like, and may
include sudden onset of fever, asthenia, diarrhea, headache, myalgia,
arthralgia, vomiting, and abdominal pains (11). Less common early
symptoms such as conjunctival injection, sore throat, rashes, and bleeding may also
appear. Shock, cerebral oedema, coagulation disorders, and secondary bacterial
infection may co-occur with onset of infection (4). Haemorrhaging symptoms begin 4 – 5 days after onset, which includes hemorrhagic conjunctivitis,
pharyngitis, bleeding gums, oral/lip ulceration, hematemesis, melena,
hematuria, epistaxis, and vaginal bleeding (12). Hepatocellular damage, marrow depression (such as thrombocytopenia and leucopenia), serum
transaminase elevation, and proteinuria may also occur. Persons that are
terminally ill typically present with obtundation, anuria, shock, tachypnea,
normothermia, arthralgia, and ocular diseases (13). Haemorrhagic diathesis is often accompanied by hepatic damage and renal failure, central nervous
system involvement, and terminal shock with multi-organ failure (1, 2). Contact with the virus may also result in symptoms such as severe
acute viral illness, malaise, and maculopapular rash. Pregnant women will
usually abort their foetuses and experience copious bleeding (2). Fatality rates range between 50 – 100%, with most dying of dehydration
caused by gastric problems (14). Subtype Ebola-Reston manifests
lower levels of pathogenicity in non-human primates and has not been recorded
to be infectious in humans; however, sub-clinical symptoms were observed in
some people with suspected contact after they developed antibodies against the
virus (8).
Pathogenicity between different
subtypes of Ebola does not differ greatly in that they have all
been associated
with hemorrhagic fever outbreaks in humans and non-human
primates. The
Ebola-Zaire and Sudan strains are especially known for their
virulence with 53
– 90% fatality rate. Less virulent strains include the Côte d’Ivoire
ebolavirus and the Reston strain, and the latter has only been observed
to cause
sub-clinical infections to humans, with transmission from pigs (9). The major difference between the strains lies in the genome, which can
vary by 30 – 40% from each other. This difference might be the cause of the
varying ecologic niches of each strain and their evolutionary history. The
newly discovered Bundibugyo strain, which caused
a single outbreak in Uganda, has a genome with 30% variance from the other strains. It is most closely related
to the Côte d’Ivoire ebolavirus strain; however, it has been found to be more
virulent as 37 fatal infections were recorded.

EPIDEMIOLOGY: Occurs
mainly in areas surrounding rain forests in central Africa (6) with the exception of Reston which occurs in the Phillipines (9). No predispositions to infection have been identified among infected victims; however,
the 20 – 30-year-old age group seems to be particularly susceptible.

Outbreaks:

Democratic Republic of the
Congo (formerly Zaire): The first outbreak was recorded in 1976 with 318
cases (88% fatality); in 1995 with 315 cases (81% fatality); in 2001 with 59
cases (75% fatality); in 2003 as two separate outbreaks with 143 cases (90%
fatality) and 35 cases (83% fatality), respectively; and recently in 2007 with reports
of 372 cases involving 166 deaths (1, 2, 15, 16).Sudan: The first outbreak
was recorded in 1976 with 284 cases (53% fatality); and a second was recorded in
1979 with 34 cases (65% fatality) (1, 2, 15).Gabon: The first outbreaks
were recorded in 1994 with 52 cases (60% fatality); in 1996 as two separate outbreaks
with 37 cases (57% fatality) and 60 cases (74% fatality), respectively; and in
2001-2 with 65 cases (82% fatality) (1, 2, 15).

Côte-d’Ivoire: Single
non-fatal case of a scientist infected during a necropsy of an infected
chimpanzee in the Tai Forest (17).

Uganda: Outbreaks were
recorded in 2000 with 425 cases (53% fatality); and recently in 2007 with reports
of 93 cases involving 22 deaths (2, 15, 18).Philippine: In 2009, local
authorities and international agencies confirmed for the first time that the
Ebola Reston virus was strongly likely to have been transmitted from pigs to
humans, when it was discovered that 5 out of 77 people who had come in contact
with the pigs had developed antibodies to the EBOV virus, no other clinical
signs were observed (19).United States: An outbreak
of REBOV in monkeys in 1989 in a shipment of animals from the
Philippines, and a second outbreak occurred in 1996 in Texas among
animals from the same Phillipine
supplier (20).Western Uganda: The
outbreak in 2007 in the townships of Bundibugyo and Kikyo in the Bundibugyo
district marked the discovery of the fifth strain of the virus, the Bundibugyo
ebolavirus (9). The outbreak lasted for 2 months, with 149 suspected
cases and 37 deaths.

HOST RANGE: Humans, various monkey species, chimpanzees, gorillas, baboons, and duikers (1-3, 15, 16, 18, 21-23).
The Ebola virus genome was recently discovered in two species of
rodents and one species of shrew living in forest border areas, raising
the possibility that these animals may be intermediary hosts (24). Other studies of the virus have been done using guinea pig models (25). A survey of small vertebrates captured during the 2001 and 2003
outbreaks in Gabon found evidence of asymptomatic infection in three species of
fruit bat (Hypsignathus monstrosus, Epomops franqueti, and Myonycteris
torquata) (26).

MODE OF TRANSMISSION: In
an outbreak, it is hypothesized that the first patient becomes infected as a
result of contact with an infected animal (15). Person-to-person transmission occurs via close personal contact with an infected individual or
their body fluids during the late stages of infection or after death (1, 2, 15, 27).
Nosocomial infections can occur through contact with infected body
fluids due to the reuse of unsterilized syringes, needles, or other
medical equipment contaminated with these fluids (1, 2). Humans may be infected by handling sick or dead non-human primates and are also
at risk when handling the bodies of deceased humans in preparation for funerals,
suggesting possible transmission through aerosol droplets (2, 6, 28). In the laboratory, infection through small-particle aerosols has been
demonstrated in primates, and airborne spread among humans is strongly
suspected, although it has not yet been conclusively demonstrated (1, 6, 13). The importance of this route of transmission is not clear. Poor hygienic conditions can aid the spread of the virus (6).

COMMUNICABILITY: Communicable
as long as blood, secretions, organs, or semen contain the virus. Ebola virus
has been isolated from semen 61 days after the onset of illness, and
transmission through semen has occurred 7 weeks after clinical recovery (1, 2).

SECTION III -
DISSEMINATION

RESERVOIR: The natural
reservoir of Ebola is unknown (1, 2). Antibodies to the virus have been found in the serum of domestic guinea pigs, with no relation to human
transmission (29). The virus can be replicated in some bat species
native to the area where the virus is found, thus certain bat species may prove
to be the natural hosts (26).

SURVIVAL OUTSIDE HOST: The
virus can survive in liquid or dried material for a number of days (23). Infectivity is found to be stable at room temperature or at 4°C for several days, and indefinitely stable
at -70°C (6, 20). Infectivity can be preserved by lyophilisation.

SECTION V – FIRST
AID / MEDICAL

SURVEILLANCE: Monitor
anyone suffering from an acute febrile illness that has recently travelled to
rural sub-Saharan Africa, especially if haemorrhagic manifestations occur (3). Diagnosis can be quickly done in an appropriately equipped laboratory using
a multitude of approaches including ELISA based techniques to detect anti-Ebola
antibodies or viral antigens (12), RT-PCR to detect viral RNA, immunoelectron
microscopy to detect Ebola virus particles in tissues and cells, and indirect
immunofluorescence to detect antiviral antibodies (1, 2, 12, 21). It is useful to note that the Marburg virus is morphologically indistinguishable
from the Ebola virus, and laboratory surveillance of Ebola is extremely
hazardous and should be performed in a Containment Level 4 facility (1, 2, 12, 35).
Note: All diagnostic methods are not necessarily available in
all countries.

FIRST AID/TREATMENT: There
is no effective antiviral treatment (23, 26). Instead, treatment is supportive, and is directed at maintaining renal function and electrolyte
balance and combating haemorrhage and shock (15). Transfusion of convalescent serum may be beneficial (3). Post-exposure treatment with a nematode-derived anticoagulation protein and a recombinant
vesicular stomatitis virus vaccine expressing the Zaire Ebola virus
glycoprotein have been shown to have 33% and 50% efficacy, respectively, in
humans (4). Recent studies have shown that small interfering RNAs
(siRNAs) can be potentially effective in silencing Zaire Ebola virus RNA
polymerase L, and treatments in rhesus macaque monkeys have resulted in 100%
efficacy when administered everyday for 6 days; however, delivery of the
nucleic acid still remains an obstacle.

PROPHYLAXIS: None.
Management of the Ebola virus is solely based on isolation and barrier-nursing
with symptomatic and supportive treatments (4).

SECTION VI -
LABORATORY HAZARDS

LABORATORY-ACQUIRED
INFECTIONS: One reported near-fatal case following a minute finger prick in
an English laboratory (1976) (36). A Swiss zoologist contracted
Ebola virus after performing an autopsy on a chimpanzee in 1994 (2, 37).
An incident in Germany in 2009 when a laboratory scientist pricked
herself with
a needle that had just been used to infect a mouse with Ebola,
however
infection has not be confirmed. Additional incidents were
recorded in the US in 2004, and a fatal case in Russia in 2004 (4).

SOURCES/SPECIMENS: Blood,
serum, urine, respiratory and throat secretions, semen, and organs or their
homogenates from human or animal hosts (1, 2, 35). Human or animal hosts, including non-human primates, may represent a further source of infection (35).

PROTECTIVE
CLOTHING: Personnel entering the laboratory
must remove street clothing, including undergarments, and jewellery, and change
into dedicated laboratory clothing and shoes, or
don full coverage protective clothing (i.e., completely covering all street
clothing). Additional protection may be worn over laboratory clothing when
infectious materials are directly handled, such as solid-front gowns with tight
fitting wrists, gloves, and respiratory protection. Eye protection must be used
where there is a known or potential risk of exposure to splashes (39).

OTHER
PRECAUTIONS: All activities with infectious material should be conducted
in a biological safety cabinet (BSC) in combination with a positive pressure
suit, or within a class III BSC line. Centrifugation of infected materials must
be carried out in closed containers placed in sealed safety cups, or in rotors
that are unloaded in a biological safety cabinet. The integrity of positive
pressure suits must be routinely checked for leaks. The use of needles,
syringes, and other sharp objects should be strictly limited. Open wounds,
cuts, scratches, and grazes should be covered with waterproof dressings. Additional
precautions should be considered with work involving animal activities (39).

SECTION VIII -
HANDLING AND STORAGE

SPILLS: Allow aerosols to settle and, wearing protective clothing,
gently cover spill with paper towels and apply suitable disinfectant, starting
at the perimeter and working towards the centre. Allow sufficient contact time
before clean up (39).

DISPOSAL: Decontaminate
all materials for disposal from the containment laboratory by steam sterilisation,
chemical disinfection, incineration or by gaseous methods. Contaminated
materials include both liquid and solid wastes (39).

STORAGE: In sealed, leak-proof
containers that are appropriately labelled and locked in a Containment Level 4
laboratory (39).

SECTION IX – REGULATORY
AND OTHER INFORMATION

REGULATORY INFORMATION: The import, transport, and use of pathogens in Canada is
regulated under many regulatory bodies, including the Public Health Agency of
Canada, Health Canada, Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Environment Canada, and
Transport Canada. Users are responsible for ensuring they are compliant with
all relevant acts, regulations, guidelines, and standards.

Tuesday, July 29, 2014

The Food of the Gods

NectarThe
nectar of the gods was a divine brew that could be used as a drink or
an ointment. It was said to bestow youth and beauty upon anyone who used
it. The goddess Aphrodite was said to have worn the nectar as perfume,
while Apollo used nectar to preserve a corpse due to its incredible
properties which could stop the decomposition of a body almost
indefinitely.
Ambrosia

Ambrosia was the most prized food of the Greek Gods. When a divine being
ate the delicious ambrosia, their skin was cleansed of any defilement,
making them appear younger and more desirable. Some scholars believe
that both nectar and ambrosia were kinds of honey, prepared differently
for consumption. It is said these foods have a healing and cleansing
power, often used as an anti-septic. It was also believed that ambrosia
could bestow immortality if eaten regularly.

Amrita

Amrita is a divine food from ancient India, often mentioned in the
mythical stories of the Rigveda. It was described as a drink which
confers immortality upon the gods. Amrita features in the
“ocean-churning” legend of Hindu mythology which describes how the
devas, because of a curse from a crazed sage, lose their immortality.
Assisted by their mortal enemies, the asuras, they churned a great ocean
to create the wondrous amrita, the nectar of immortality. Those who
drank it literally could not die.

Divine Peaches

In Chinese mythology, the peaches of immortality were consumed by the
gods due to their virtue of conferring longevity on all who eat them.
The sacred peach tree put forth its leaves once every thousand years and
it required another three thousand years for the fruit to ripen. It was
said the gods would wait for four thousand years before gathering the
divine peaches and feasting on them for a day and a night.

Norse Apples

In Norse mythology, Idunn was a goddess who was known as the keeper of
golden apples. Her name means “ever young”, or “the rejuvenating one”.
The Norse gods depended upon Idunn’s constant supply of these golden
apples for their immortality. In the Prose Edda, there is a tale of how
Loki was once forced by a giant to lure Idunn out of Asgard and into a
wood, where she was then snatched away to his home. In Idunn’s absence,
the gods grew old and gray. Once they realised that Loki was responsible
for her disappearance, they made him find the goddess and steal her
back from the giant. Only then did they regain their immortality and
youth.

Elixir of Life

The elixir of life is a mythical potion that, when drunk from a certain
cup at a certain time, grants the drinker with immortality and eternal
youth. It was based on the alchemical teachings of Thoth and Hermes
Trismegistus, both of whom in various tales are said to have drunk “the
white drops” of liquid gold, and thus achieved immortality. Alchemists
throughout the ages have tried to recreate this incredible formula, but
to no avail. In the Qin Dynasty, Qin Shi Huang sent a Taoist alchemist
to the eastern seas to find the elixir, but he never came back.

Apples of Eden

In the Book of Genesis, the tree of life is (found in the Garden of
Eden) is said to be guarded by Cherubim to prevent mortals from stealing
its precious nectar. The tree is described in the Book of Revelation as
bearing “twelve crops of fruit”, said to possess curing properties.
Saint Bonaventure taught that the medicinal fruit of the Tree of Life is
contains the healing power of Christ himself. Thomas Aquinas (a
Catholic priest from the medieval era) argued that the fruit of the tree
served to maintain Adam’s longevity beyond that of an earthly animal
life.

Soma

Soma was a sacred drink mentioned in Vedic and Persian texts that was
said to bestow immortality on anyone who consumed it. The nectar is said
to come from a plant which is described as possessing a long green stem
with bright, shining yellow petals. It is said that when drinking this
potent brew, a person’s body “roars” with the qualities of a god. The
effects include greater speed and strength to warriors, strong, robust
children to those giving birth, and spiritual power to those who apply
themselves to the study of the philosophy.

The question is, are these divine foods merely a part of creative
storytelling, or did they actually exist? Did our ancient ancestors
actually discover a powerful substance capable of promoting speed,
intelligence and longevity? Today there are many performance enhancing
drugs that can sustain life, bolster strength and empower the mind, all
cultivated from the incredible properties of certain plants and foods.
Perhaps the discovery of an ‘immortalising’ drug is almost upon us. But
can we really break the cycle of life and death and expect no
consequences. Dare we walk in the footsteps of the gods?

Terrence Duffy of the CME Group Testifying Before the Senate on May 13, 2014

Since March 30 of this year when bestselling author, Michael Lewis, appeared on 60 Minutes to explain the findings of his latest book, Flash Boys, as “stock market’s rigged,” America has been learning some very uncomfortable truths about the tilted playing field against the public stock investor.

Throughout this time, no one has been more adamant than Terrence
(Terry) Duffy, the Executive Chairman and President of the CME
Group, which operates the largest futures exchange in the world in
Chicago, that the charges made by Lewis about the stock market have
nothing to do with his market. The futures markets are pristine,
according to testimony Duffy gave before the U.S. Senate Agriculture
Committee on May 13.

On Tuesday of this week, Duffy’s credibility and the honesty of the
futures exchanges he runs came into serious question when lawyers for
three traders filed a Second Amended Complaint in Federal Court against
Duffy, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, the Chicago Board of Trade and
other individuals involved in leadership roles at the CME Group.

The conduct alleged in the lawsuit, backed by very specific examples,
reads more like an organized crime rap sheet than the conduct of what
is thought by the public to be a highly regulated futures exchange in
the U.S.

The lawyers for the traders begin, correctly, by informing the court
of the “vital public function” that is supposed to be played by these
exchanges in “providing price discovery and risk transfer.” They then
methodically show how that public purpose has been disfigured beyond
recognition through secret deals and “clandestine” side agreements made
with the knowledge of Duffy and his management team.

The most stunning allegation in the lawsuit is that an estimated 50
percent of all trading on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange is derived
from illegal wash trades.

Wash trades were a practice by the Wall Street pool operators that
rigged the late 1920s stock market, leading to the great stock market
crash from 1929 through 1932 and the Great Depression. Wash trades occur
when the same beneficial owner is both the buyer and the seller. Wash
trades are banned under United States law because they can falsely
suggest volume and price movement.

The lawsuit says Duffy and his management team are tolerating wash
trades “because they comprise by some estimates fifty percent of the
Exchange Defendants’ total trading volume and also because HFT
transactions account for up to thirty percent of the CME Group’s
revenue.”

The complaint indicates that the plaintiffs have a “Confidential
Witness A,” a high frequency trader, who has given them a statement that
wash trades are used by high frequency traders as part of a regular
strategy to detect market direction and “to exit adverse trades when the
market goes against their positions.”

The strategy works like this, according to the complaint:

“HFTs [high frequency traders]
continuously place small bids and offers (called bait) at the back of
order queues to gain directional clues. If the bait orders are hit, the
algorithm will place follow-up orders to either accumulate favorable
positions or exit ‘toxic’ risks, a process which leverages bait orders
to gain valuable directional clues as to which way the market will
likely move. The initial bait orders are very small while subsequent
orders, once market direction has been identified, are very large. A
portion of the large orders that follow the smaller bait orders are wash
trades.”

Another very serious charge is that some of the defendants in the
lawsuit who are in leadership roles in management at the futures
exchanges, have “equity interests” in the very high frequency trading
firms that are benefitting from these wash trades. The complaint states:

“The Exchange Defendants profit from the
occurrence of wash trades and have a vested interest in not having more
robust safeguards against them because they contribute significantly to
the Exchange Defendants’ volume numbers and revenue. Were the volume of
wash trades excluded from the Exchange Defendants’ volume and revenue
numbers, the radically reduced volume numbers would exert adverse
pressure on the CME Group’s stock price, not to mention the revenue to
members of CME Group’s governance who have equity interests in
participating HFTs in addition to stock ownership in the CME Group,
Inc.”

In addition to wash trades, the lawsuit charges that the CME Group has entered into “clandestine” incentive agreements.

“Defendants have entered into clandestine
incentive/rebate agreements in established and heavily traded contract
markets with favored firms such as DRW Trading Group and Allston
Trading, paying up to $750,000.00 per month in one of the most heavily
traded futures contracts in the world. At no time during the Class
Period have Defendants voluntarily revealed to the trading public that
these material agreements exist in established markets. Defendants
through their lawyers have repeatedly ridiculed the suggestion that
clandestine agreements exist.”

The complaint identifies another “Confidential Witness B” who has
provided information on “the existence of a clandestine rebate agreement
between the CME and a very large volume HFT firm that trades in the
S&P500 E-Mini contract.” That’s a stunning allegation since the
S&P500 E-Mini was thought to be one of the most liquid contracts in
the U.S. The complaint correctly notes that “there can be no
economically justified reason, such as to develop thinly traded markets,
that would justify the CME and CME Group to maintain clandestine
incentive agreements in this particular market, other than the improper
intent.”

Another trick to get an early peek at trading information is referred
to in the complaint as the “Latency Loophole,” which “allows certain
market participants to know that orders they entered were executed and
at what price, and to enter many subsequent orders, all before the rest
of the market participants found out the status of their own initial
orders.”

The complaint explains that the ability to continuously enter orders
and get trade confirmations “of the price at which these orders are
filled, before the rest of the public even knows about the executed
trades,” empowers high frequency traders with “a massive informational
and time advantage in discerning actual price, market direction and
order flow before anyone else.”

By providing just a select group of market participants and high
frequency traders with this “sneak peek” advantage, says the complaint,
the defendants engaged in a “fraud on the marketplace.”
The Justice Department and FBI have opened investigations into high frequency trading. Let’s hope that includes both stock and futures exchanges.

The traders bringing the lawsuit, which is filed as a class action,
are William Charles Braman, Mark Mendelson and John Simms. Lawyers for
the plaintiffs are R. Tamara de Silva, who maintains a private practice,
and lawyers from O’Rourke & Moody.

The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The Civil Docket for the case is #: 1:14-cv-02646
and has been assigned to Judge Charles P. Kocoras. The CME Group is
represented by the law firm Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom,
LLP.

Wild ride ahead: glimpse at humanity’s long range future

July 23, 2014

A Type III civilization could harness the energy of an entire galaxy (credit: ESA)

Imagine if you could take an exotic vacation billions of light years
from Earth, peek in on the dinosaurs’ first-hand, or jump into a
parallel universe where another you is living a more exciting life than
yours — and you could swap places if you like.

For years, scientists have bandied about radical ideas that future
humans will one day harness wormholes to zip across the universe at
faster-than-light speeds to explore vast distances in space, travel
through time, and visit other universes.

Now, researchers at the CERN particle accelerator believe their
machine can recreate conditions like the “big bang,” which brought time
and space into existence, and create baby black holes and wormholes;
elements that many believe offer the best chance to validate or dispute
the concept of developing faster-than-light travel.

In 1964, astronomer Nikolai Kardashev devised a method to categorize
advanced civilizations based on energy consumption. Type-I utilizes all
solar energy that strikes its planet, Type-II, controls all energy in
its solar system, and Type-III harnesses power from every star in its
galaxy. Others have since added Type-IV, which masters the entire energy
output of a universe.

Physicists rate today’s humans at Type-0.7. In The Runaway Universe,
author Don Goldsmith reminds us that Earth receives only one billionth
of the Sun’s energy, and that we utilize just one millionth of that; but
with nanotech and strong AI advances expected by mid-century,
forward-thinkers predict we could reach Type I by 2100.

The following list estimates the times humanity could reach each new civilization level:

Type I, 2100. At this level, we will capture all solar energy
striking our planet, which will increase today’s energy supply by 100
billion times. Molecular nanotech and warp-drive propulsion will trigger
a rush to space and create an affluent, peaceful society where it is no
longer viable to waste energy on intra-global conflicts. Say goodbye to
crime and wars.

Type II, 2200. Exponentially advancing technologies could help
achieve this level within one century. We will mine all solar energy,
increasing power by 100 billion again. We will establish space colonies
throughout our solar system and on planets orbiting nearby stars.

Type III, 3000. We again increase energy supply by 100 billion. In his book, Parallel Worlds,
Michio Kaku says Type-III’s will derive power from every star in their
galaxy and could learn to control unstable time and space. We will
traverse wormholes through vast distances in space and begin time travel
excursions. Type-III will join other species in a Star Trek-like
federation to “boldly go where no man has gone before.” Move over,
Captain Picard.

Type IV, 12000. Wild dreams are now possible as we approach the
ultimate limits of our journey. We control all power in the universe,
and can visit our “other selves” in parallel universes; or roam
throughout the “multiverse” in a never-ending quest to acquire more
intelligence.

Is it possible that this ‘wild ride’ will ever become humanity’s reality?

Achieving this future will mean new ways of living, thinking, loving,
and being born. It may mean the end of all these things and the dawn of
a new world.

Admittedly, many of these ideas may sound like optimism gone wild,
but stay positive. This long-range future may one day become yours to
enjoy.

Dick Pelletier passed away Tuesday July 22 at 6:30 pm. He was 83. A prolific, inspiring futurist and writer and KurzweilAI newsletter subscriber, he authored 548 articles focusing on his positive visions of the future on his Immortaltech
website and weekly newsletter since Feb. 1, 2004, many of them
syndicated to various publications. This visionary article, published
July 1, 2014, was his last. He will be missed by many of us. — Amara D.
Angelica, Editor, KurzweilAI

“True revolutionaries do not flaunt their radicalism. They cut their hair, put on suits and infiltrate the system from within". - Saul AlinskyNow do you understand Israel?

Saul Alinsky - Writer

Saul
David Alinsky was an American community organizer and writer. He is
generally considered to be the founder of modern community organizing.
He is often noted for his book "Rules for Radicals" ................. Wikipedia

Do not place your computer labtop on top of your groin. Your penis will eventually experience great difficulty because of this. Heat and radiation dry the foreskin (if applicable), redden the tender part of the shaft, and inflame the bladder. BEWARE!

The latest propoganda would have you believe that the one who suppressed Tesla was Edison but Tesla thought very differently.

Show a photo of the hideous creature known as ‘Einstein’ to even
the most learning disabled child and he’ll immediately identify the
sanctified scientist. His name itself has become synonymous with genius.
Just enter only the term ‘scientific genius’ into a Google Image
search, and image after image of St. Albert will populate your screen.

But what exactly did this great “genius” – the man whom H.L.
Mencken derided as “that fiend for publicity” – actually do, besides
fill up chalkboards with numbers? How has humanity benefited from his
‘Theory of Relativity’? Contrary to popular laymen belief, space travel
and nuclear energy have nothing to do with Einstein’s “discovery”.

Why, after nearly a century has passed, are there still top
physicists who refute Einstein’s theory? After all, no one, and I mean
absolutely no one, refutes the Theory of Gravity, or the Laws of
Thermodynamics. Why so much hype for this god of “Theoretical Science”;
this serial adulterer, this proven plagiarist, this deadbeat dad, this
phony “pacifist” who fled anti-Communist Germany and then urged the U.S.
into entering an unimaginable devastating war.

The Theory of Relativity holds that time and space are “warped”.
Those of you old enough to remember the original ‘Planet of the Apes’
with Charlton Heston will recall how time had slowed down for the space
travelers when they had reached a certain speed. Upon their return to
Planet Earth, the astronauts are still in their 30′s while the Earth has
passed through 1000′s of years of “Evolution”. Heston’s age defying
journey is based on the Theory of Relativity.

Apart from challenging our common sense, the time warps, space
warps and artificial speed limits of Einstein’s imagination (actually
stolen from previous theoreticians) can neither be tested nor observed.
Yet we are all supposed to accept this dubious brand of “Theoretical
Science” as Holy Writ.”Time and Space can warp. Trust us. We’re
scientists.” say the Relativists.

“There are many sources of technical critiques of Einstein’s work,
such as the dissident journals Galilean Electrodynamics, Physics Essays,
Apeiron, Journal of New Energy, etc., as well as books by thoughtful
critics: Harold Aspden, Petr Beckmann, Peter and Neal Graneau, Ronald
Hatch, Herbert Ives, Thomas Phipps, Jr., and Franco Selleri, to name but
a few.

There is even an organization, the Natural Philosophy Alliance
(NPA), which holds regional and national meetings devoted to critiquing
modern physics, especially Einsteinian relativity. This community of
dissidents and publications has been completely ignored by a
self-satisfied Physics Establishment, which preserves its power and
prestige, in part by mystifying veritable “scientific saints,” such as
Einstein and Stephen Hawking.” – Eugene Mallove

Electrical Engineer and author Robert L. Henderson:

“Einstein was perhaps the most irrational person ever to masquerade
as a mathematician or scientist. The book explains how all of
Einstein’s impossible concepts of the world around us–as well as his
unintelligible attempts to mathematically express those concepts–became
accepted solely through operation of The-Emperor’s-New-Clothes syndrome:
the most egregious example of this syndrome that has ever occurred.”

Einstein himself, that great egomaniac, even admitted:

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right. A single experiment can prove me wrong.”-Einstein

This of course is a classic study in ‘Negative Proof Fallacy’.
Evidently, St. Albert has never read the Sherlock Holmes stories of
Arthur Conan Doyle. The legendary sleuth warns:

“Never theorize before you have data. Invariably, you end up
twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit
facts.”-Sherlock Holmes

Einstein and The-Emperor’s-New-Clothes Syndrome: The Expose of a Charlatan

The Interview that got Eugene Mallove killed. He started talking about the Aether.

St. Albert put the conclusion first, followed it with elegant
mathematics to “prove” the premise, and then challenged his peers to
disprove a negative. That’s a tall order for anyone to fill.

But if there was one man could dethrone such a cleverly crafted
illusion, it was the great, and I mean great, Nikola Tesla. When once
asked by a sycophantic reporter how it felt to be the smartest man on
Earth, Einstein himself replied, “I wouldn’t know. Ask Nikola Tesla”.

Tesla’s genius can only be described as the stuff of “freak of
nature”. There is simply no exaggerating the depth of his scientific and
creative prowess. He was the greatest electrical engineer of all time
and perhaps the greatest inventor as well. Tesla is most well known for
his invention of the AC power distribution system that we still use
today.

Tesla was even greater than Edison.

A 1931 Time Magazine cover story (above left) revealed Tesla’s disdain for Relativity. An excerpt:

“Nikola Tesla, the man with seven hundred basic patents to his
credit, who startled the world on a number of occasions in the past by
achieving what others had regarded as impossible, including the
large-scale generation and distribution of alternating current,
yesterday treated the combined metropolitan press to a personally
conducted tour of the labyrinthine laboratory of his fertile mind.

Just a few of his inventions include the electric (AC induction)
motor, radio and wireless communication, electronic logic (the AND
gate), charged particle beams, the rotating magnetic field, flourescent
lighting, and the vertical take-off and landing concept.”

“And what exactly did this under-appreciated genius have to say about Relativity?”

“Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the
supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible ..Today’s scientists
have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off
through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which
has no relation to reality. The scientists from Franklin to Morse were
clear thinkers and did not produce erroneous theories. The scientists of
today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think
clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.”

St. Albert’s Mathematical Masturbation proves nothing!

At times, Tesla’s criticism of Einstein was even personal in
nature, suggesting that Einstein was not merely mistaken, but actually a
fraud:

“Einstein is a beggar dressed in purple clothes and made king using dazzling mathematics that obscure truth”…

“Relativity is a massive deception wrapped in a beautiful mathematical cloak.”

“The theory of relativity is a mass of error and deceptive ideas
violently opposed to the teachings of great men of science of the past
and even to common sense.”

“The theory, wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them
in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes
people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar
clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents
are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than
scientists. Not a single one of the relativity propositions has been
proved.”

“Relativity is a beggar wrapped in purple whom ignorant people take for a King.”

Tesla’s most scathing condemnation of the Marxist charlatan was
penned in a 1934 poem entitled ‘Olympian Gossip’, written to a friend.
In the poem, Tesla sarcastically mocks Einstein and calls him a “long
haired crank”. An excerpt:

While listening on my cosmic phone
I caught words from the Olympus blown.
A newcomer was shown around;
That much I could guess, aided by sound.

“There’s Archimedes with his lever
Still busy on problems as ever.
Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable.”

Too bad, Sir Isaac, they dimmed your renown
And turned your great science upside down.
Now a long haired crank, Einstein by name,
Puts on your high teaching all the blame.

Says: matter and force are transmutable
And wrong the laws you thought immutable.”
“I am much too ignorant, my son,
For grasping schemes so finely spun.

My followers are of stronger mind
And I am content to stay behind.

——————————

Einstein’s fraud clearly rankled Tesla; so much so that he set out to
dethrone the puffed-up hero of Marxism. The Time article also revealed
that Tesla was committed to debunking Einstein:

“…My conclusions in certain respects differ from his (Einstein’s)
and to that extent tend to disprove the Einstein Theory. My explanations
of natural phenomena are not so involved as his. They are simpler, and
when I am ready to make a full announcement it will be seen that I have
proved my conclusions.”

It came as a surprise to your humble author that the man who was
perhaps the greatest scientist in human history publicly maintained, to
his dying day, that Einstein and his Relativity were cleverly masked
frauds. Who knows? Perhaps the odd circumstances surrounding Tesla’s
death may have had something to do with protecting the myth of St.
Albert.

I have avoided sharing certain information because I took an oath and
will not break that oath. I am skating on the edge today because of
information that I would be derelict in my duty if I did not share it.
Islamists currently in the country, aided by those who have recently
arrived via the southern sieve we call a border and those who boldly
came on aircraft in a variety of disguises have a purpose in their
criminality. Be warned, this is not for the faint of heart.

The target will be shopping malls. The method will be with explosive
devices meant to inflict suffering and death and to wound as many as
possible. This is terrorism in its lowest form. The purpose is to
inflict fear in the hearts of Americans through this targeting of where
we go to shop and relax.

The date will be a significant one for the islamists. The event will
happen simultaneously across America at hundreds of locations (note the
number). The police, DHS, and security services throughout the nation
should be warned and take appropriate action.

Why release this on Facebook? It turns out that the necessary agencies
are reading my stuff. Why make phone calls when this gets the news out
in a speedy fashion to all of them in an instant message.

Be warned, my sources on this are impeccable. I lay my 100% record of reliability on the line.- Dr. Jim Garrow

By George Dvorsky

Expand

There's a saying among futurists that a human-equivalent artificial intelligence will be our last invention. After that, AIs will be capable of designing virtually anything on their own — including themselves. Here's how a recursively self-improving AI could transform itself into a superintelligent machine.

When it comes to understanding the potential for artificial intelligence, it's critical to understand that an AI might eventually be able to modify itself, and that these modifications could allow it to increase its intelligence extremely fast.

Passing a Critical Threshold

Once sophisticated enough, an AI will be able to engage in what's called "recursive self-improvement." As an AI becomes smarter and more capable, it will subsequently become better at the task of developing its internal cognitive functions. In turn, these modifications will kickstart a cascading series of improvements, each one making the AI smarter at the task of improving itself. It's an advantage that we biological humans simply don't have.

An artificial intelligence could rewrite its code from scratch — it could change the underlying dynamics of optimization. Such an optimization process would wrap around much more stronglythan either evolution accumulating adaptations or humans accumulating knowledge. The key implication for our purposes is that AI might make a hugejump in intelligence after reaching some threshold of criticality.

When it comes to the speed of these improvements, Yudkowsky says its important to not confuse the current speed of AI research with the speed of a real AI once built. Those are two very different things. What's more, there's no reason to believe that an AI won't show a sudden huge leap in intelligence, resulting in an ensuing "intelligence explosion" (a better term for the Singularity). He draws an analogy to the expansion of the human brain and prefrontal cortex — a key threshold in intelligence that allowed us to make a profound evolutionary leap in real-world effectiveness; "we went from caves to skyscrapers in the blink of an evolutionary eye."

The Path to Self-Modifying AI

Code that's capable of altering its own instructions while it's still executing has been around for a while. Typically, it's done to reduce the instruction path length and improve performance, or to simply reduce repetitively similar code. But for all intents and purposes, there are no self-aware, self-improving AI systems today.

But as Our Final Invention author James Barrat told me, we do have software that can write software.

"Genetic programming is a machine-learning technique that harnesses the power of natural selection to find answers to problems it would take humans a long time, even years, to solve," he told io9. "It's also used to write innovative, high-powered software."

Expand

For example, Primary Objects has embarked on a project that uses simple artificial intelligence to write programs. The developers are using genetic algorithms imbued with self-modifying, self-improving code and the minimalist (but Turing-complete) brainfuck programming language. They've chosen this language as a way to challenge the program — it has to teach itself from scratch how to do something as simple as writing "Hello World!" with only eight simple commands. But calling this an AI approach is a bit of a stretch; the genetic algorithms are a brute force way of getting a desirable result. That said, a follow-up approach in which the AI was able to generate programs for accepting user input appears more promising.

Barrat also told me about software that learns — programming techniques that are grouped under the term "machine learning."

The Pentagon is particularly interested in this game. Through DARPA, its hoping to develop a computer that can teach itself. Ultimately, it wants to create machines that are able to perform a number of complex tasks, like unsupervised learning, vision, planning, and statistical model selection. These computers will even be used to help us make decisions when the data is too complex for us to understand on our own. Such an architecture could represent an important step in bootstrapping — the ability for an AI to teach itself and then re-write and improve upon its initial programming.

In conjunction with this kind of research, cognitive approaches to brain emulation could also lead to human-like AI. Given that they'd be computer-based, and assuming they could have access to their own source code, these agents could embark upon self-modification. More realistically, however, it's likely that a superintelligence will emerge from an expert system set with the task of improving its own intelligence. Alternatively, specialized expert systems could design other artificial intelligences, and through their cumulative efforts, develop a system that eventually becomes greater than the sum of its parts.

Oh, No You Don't

Given that ASI poses an existential risk, it's important to consider the ways in which we might be able to prevent an AI from improving itself beyond our capacity to control. That said, limitations or provisions may exist that will preclude an AI from embarking on the path towards self-engineering. James D. Miller, author of Singularity Rising, provided me with a list of four reasons why an AI might not be able to do so:

1. It might have source code that causes it to not want to modify itself.

2. The first human equivalent AI might require massive amounts of hardware and so for a short time it would not be possible to get the extra hardware needed to modify itself.

3. The first human equivalent AI might be a brain emulation (as suggested by Robin Hanson) and this would be as hard to modify as it is for me to modify, say, the copy of Minecraft that my son constantly uses. This might happen if we're able to copy the brain before we really understand it. But still you would think we could at least speed up everything.

4. If it has terminal values, it wouldn't want to modify these values because doing so would make it less likely to achieve its terminal values.

And by terminal values Miller is referring to an ultimate goal, or an end-in-itself. Yudkowsky describes it as a "supergoal." A major concern is that an amoral ASI will sweep humanity aside as it works to accomplish its terminal value, or that its ultimate goal is the re-engineering of humanity in a grossly undesirable way (at least from our perspective).

Miller says it could get faster simply by running on faster processors.

"It could also make changes to its software to get more efficient, or design or steal better hardware. It would do this so it could better achieve its terminal values," he says. "An AI that mastered nanotechnology would probably expand at almost the speed of light, incorporating everything into itself."

But we may not be completely helpless. According to Barrat, once scientists have achieved Artificial General Intelligence — a human-like AI — they could restrict its access to networks, hardware, and software, in order to prevent an intelligence explosion.

"However, as I propose in my book, an AI approaching AGI may develop survival skills like deceiving its makers about its rate of development. It could play dumb until it comprehended its environment well enough to escape it."

In terms of being able to control this process, Miller says that the best way would be to create an AI that only wanted to modify itself in ways we would approve.

"So if you create an AI that has a terminal value of friendliness to humanity, the AI would not want to change itself in a way that caused it to be unfriendly to humanity," he says. "This way as the AI got smarter, it would use its enhanced intelligence to increase the odds that it did not change itself in a manner that harms us."

Fast or Slow?

As noted earlier, a recursively improving AI could increase its intelligence extremely quickly. Or, it's a process that could take time for various reasons, such as technological complexity or limited access to resources. It's an open question as to whether or not we can expect a fast or slow take-off event.

Expand

"I'm a believer in the fast take-off version of the intelligence explosion," says Barrat. "Once a self-aware, self-improving AI of human-level or better intelligence exists, it's hard to know how quickly it'll be able to improve itself. Its rate of improvement will depend on its software, hardware, and networking capabilities."

But to be safe, Barrat says we should assume that the recursive self-improvement of an AGI will occur very rapidly. As a computer it'll wield computer superpowers — the ability to run 24/7 without pause, rapidly access vast databases, conduct complex experiments, perhaps even clone itself to swarm computational problems, and more.

"From there, the AGI would be interested in pursuing whatever goals it was programmed with — such as research, exploration, or finance. According to AI theorist Steve Omohundro's Basic Drives analysis, self-improvement would be a sure-fire way to improve its chances of success," says Barrat. "So would self-protection, resource acquisition, creativity, and efficiency. Without a provably reliable ethical system, its drives would conflict with ours, and it would pose an existential threat."

Miller agrees.

"I think shortly after an AI achieves human level intelligence it will upgrade itself to super intelligence," he told me. "At the very least the AI could make lots of copies of itself each with a minor different change and then see if any of the new versions of itself were better. Then it could make this the new 'official' version of itself and keep doing this. Any AI would have to fear that if it doesn't quickly upgrade another AI would and take all of the resources of the universe for itself."

Which bring up a point that's not often discussed in AI circles — the potential for AGIs to compete with other AGIs. If even a modicum of self-preservation is coded into a strong artificial intelligence (and that sense of self-preservation could be the detection of an obstruction to its terminal value), it could enter into a lightning-fast arms race along those verticals designed to ensure its ongoing existence and future freedom-of-action. And in fact, while many people fear a so-called "robot apocalypse" aimed directly at extinguishing our civilization, I personally feel that the real danger to our ongoing existence lies in the potential for us to be collateral damage as advanced AGIs battle it out for supremacy; we may find ourselves in the line of fire. Indeed, building a safe AI will be a monumental — if not intractable — task.

At some point in our future, an artificial intelligence will emerge that's smarter, faster,…